NYT censors itself in Britain

What happens when a local law conflicts with the publication of a newspaper …

As we've seen in the past with the controversy surrounding Google's web site in China, global companies complying with national laws can be a dicey issue, especially when freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) is at stake. Google took a lot of heat from its response that the company was only complying with local statutes when it designed Google.cn—which limits the results of certain searches for terms such as "liberty" or "Tiananmen Square."

Therefore, it was something of a surprise this week, when the New York Times used a variant of its own ad-localization software for the purpose of blocking web access to one of its stories to readers in the UK, citing compliance with local laws. Additionally, the paper also blocked shipments to Britain of the print version of Monday's paper.

According to the notice which appeared on the New York Times web site, Britain has a set of statutes that "prohibit publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial." The story in question, entitled "Details Emerge in British Terror Case," concerned the recently uncovered scheme to blow up airplanes traveling between the UK and the US, and contained details regarding bomb-building supplies and videotapes discovered by police during the course of the investigation.

George Freeman, assistant general counsel for the Times, defended the paper's decision to censor itself, saying "We're dealing with a country that, while it doesn't have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it's our position that we ought to respect that country's laws."

The fact that the UK has freedom of the press seems to distinguish the paper's action from Google's, which was perceived by many as colluding with an oppressive government for the sake of increased profits. Still, the decision has rankled some free speech advocates, for whom the American press stands as something of a model. If a paper with the prestige of the New York Times can censor itself for the sake of local laws—even if only for a short while until the trial is over—it creates an environment in which other publications may feel comfortable doing the same.

For those concerned that the decision made by the New York Times heralds the eventual breakdown of the information age, don't be. The story—through its censorship—has gotten more coverage than it probably would have if the Times had merely published the article in the usual manner. Furthermore, it has been passed along on other sites, and details from the story were picked up and reprinted in at least two British newspapers. In other words, the information age is working the way it is supposed to: like a sieve.